Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act of 2003

Will my friend from Nevada yield for a question?

Mr. President, I appreciate very much my distinguished copartner on the Transportation Subcommittee talking about the need to get this bill through quickly. He was discussing the difference between the bill we have now and the original bill.

I was wondering if it is correct that the original highway bill really didn't have any formulas; it was what one would have to call pork because it had various projects in it. It was an effort by the Congress to outline where money is needed. Is that not basically the form of the original highway bill?

Mr. President, if the Senator from Nevada will yield for another question, isn't it true that the scope of this bill, the size of it, reflects programs that Congresses in previous years decided are good for the national transportation policy? In other words, we are not creating a new formula; we have taken the formula, the apportionment that existed. Is it not true that we have attempted to construct this bill so that, working with the formula, every State gets up to 95 cents?

My State of Missouri was one of those States, when I got here in 1987, that was only getting back 77 cents. Every State will get up to 95 cents on the dollar. Every State, at a minimum, will get a 10- percent increase. Some States that would be getting much more money will only get a 40-percent or 40-plus-percent increase, which some may object to and say is not enough. But in this day and age, with a tight budget, it seems to me a 40-percent increase is not bad to take home from a compromise bill. Is that a fair assessment?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I ask my colleague to yield about a matter.

We have a number of technical amendments. There is a question about whether we want to move to that. We are preparing a technical amendment. I have discussed this with both sides. Basically, this is a technical amendment that accomplishes a number of things. In essence, it achieves the original goal of an amendment offered by Senator Warner, which was to increase the metropolitan planning share or takedown from 1 percent to 1.5 percent. We are getting a technical amendment copied, and as soon as we get the copies, if there is no objection from the managers, I thought we would do that.

Mr. President, might we inquire of the managers on the Democratic side if they are ready to take this up?

I will be happy to withhold on that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to announce there is an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, and Reid. This is one small step for mankind toward a highway bill.

There had been some concern about offering amendments. This is a technical amendment. This changes a number of items that, when crafting the bill, were erroneous. Normally we would adopt these technical amendments without objection. But there may be some discussion on it. I wish to explain the one perhaps significant change in this technical amendment so everybody knows what we are doing.

In the previous bill, TEA-21, the metropolitan planning organizations received 1 percent from the Surface Transportation Program to do the work that these agencies are required to do in approving transportation plans, conforming them to air quality plans. This 1 percent takedown, as it is called, amounted to about $1.7 billion over the life of the bill.

In drafting the underlying bill, we increased spending on planning for metropolitan planning organizations by $800 million, almost a 50 percent increase.

When Senator Warner proposed making the takedown of the share for the metropolitan planning organizations 1.5 percent rather than 1 percent,

it was on the assumption that the total of the previous amount plus what we did in committee would amount to 1.5 percent. But as it was drafted and printed in the committee report, it wound up adding what we had previously put in the equity bonus on top of the 1.5 percent.

I believe this amendment restores the MPO portion to that originally proposed and adopted, i.e., a 1.5 percent share, which is what we have all agreed is needed for metropolitan planning organizations.

We have a letter that I will submit, signed by the executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the president and chief executive officer of the American Highway Users Alliance, the chief executive officer of Associated General Contractors of America, the executive director of American Road and Transportation Builders Association, and the executive director of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The letter says, in substance--and I will submit the full letter-- that we write on behalf of the organizations to express concerns over the size of the total, the 1.5 percent-plus, the additional equity bonus. Their point is that the large increase results from a combination of adjustments, growth in the overall highway program, an increase in the percentage set-aside, and broadening of the program base subject to the metropolitan planning set-aside.

They believed that adding an additional $2.2 billion for planning would make that much less available for improving, constructing, maintaining, and operating a safe and efficient highway system.

They come out strongly in support--as we all are--of increasing the metropolitan planning funds. The number of MPOs has increased 340 to 378, and many more are looking at the prospect of being designated as nonattainment for the new ozone and fine particulate standards. They recommend an increase more comparable to the growth in MPOs, but they do not think tripling it is wise. So they have asked us to reconsider.

The purpose of this technical amendment, among other things, is to bring it back to the 1.5 percent increase, upon which we have previously agreed.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I see the majority leader is in the Chamber. We will not act on this amendment at this time. If somebody wishes to object to it after the majority leader speaks, we would ask that they come to the floor and make an objection. Otherwise, I propose that at 3 o'clock we ask that the amendment be adopted or, if we need a recorded vote, we will be happy to do that. One way or another, I hope we can have action on this by 3 o'clock.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, might I ask the Senator from New Hampshire what his substitute does?

Mr. President, this obviously is a very important issue the Senator has raised. Having this as an amendment to a technical amendment raises questions that I think perhaps should be answered.

First, I point out to my friends who are concerned about it that the number we have chosen for the highway portion of the bill was a number adopted by a 79-21 vote on the floor of this body. In addition, we understand the need to provide funding for highways. The Finance Committee has worked very hard to come up with the funding measures. I don't serve on the Finance Committee, but they have adopted fuel tax compliance measures. They have reformed the provisions for the ethanol exemption. It is a very valuable agricultural fuel that improves the environment. They will not charge the highway trust fund with that. They will pay down the existing interest owed to the highway trust fund and spend down the balance. They will clarify mobile machinery exemptions and transportation taxes, and discontinue refunds going from the trust fund into the general revenue fund for fuel tax exemptions. These are generally related to the highway trust fund.

Further, I will point out for those of us who said we want the trust fund used for highways, the trust fund right now is being used for other things that are not highway related, such as automobile, bus, and truck drivers. Some $36 billion will go to mass transit, a very valuable adjunct to the transportation system but not something that

people who pay highway trust fund taxes are using because they are putting the gas and diesel in their own vehicles.

There are also valuable environmental benefits in there such as CMAQ--congestion mitigation for air quality. There are also rails and trails and other easements in there that are a significant diversion of highway trust fund dollars from the direct highway trust fund purposes.

I hope my colleagues who have problems with strict application of highway funds being raised on highway uses deal with that in an amendment that is directly related to the highway bill transportation which is before us.

Obviously, one of the things one can do in the Senate is to offer amendments that are more properly the jurisdiction of other committees, which certainly collective bargaining is, I would say, such an effort. But this bill is so important to the United States, to our economy, and the safety and well-being of the people who use our highways and use our bridges in the United States that I hope we can get back to the main purpose of this measure, which is to continue the highway program, which builds better roads, better bridges, and provides jobs--47,000 jobs for each $1 billion of highway contracts--and provides the future for economic growth in our States.

As I have said on many occasions on this floor, I can tell you jobs are going to be located in the States where they have good transportation systems, and good highways are essential for that.

Finally, in my State it is a matter of saving lives. So I hope we can get back to dealing with the important measures in this bill. I hope we can deal with the specific needs, make the technical amendments that are normally permitted on such a bill, and debate the major provisions.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, picking up with the description of this bill, which we think is extremely important, I am going to share some other views. But I want to continue with this description of the bill.

Under the current law, there is a general prohibition against placing commercial establishments in recreation and safety rest areas on interstate rights-of-way. This bill creates a small exception to this prohibition by allowing States to place either electrification or other idling facilities that can be used for heating, air-conditioning, electricity, and communication. This will enable truck operators to receive services without continuing to run their engines, thereby reducing vehicle emissions. States, other public agencies, and private entities are already allowed to operate on the interstate system and may charge for the services provided under this new authority.

Why is this important? This is tremendously important. If you travel in your State along an interstate, you will find now that the new hours-of-service regulations require truckers to take more frequent breaks. There are rest areas in my State which are crowded with trucks. There are entrances to and exits from interstate highways where significant numbers of trucks are parked. This is to make sure that the drivers get the rest they need. There has been some controversy over it, but this is the rule and they are abiding by that rule. But when they are shut down and idling, particularly in bitter cold weather so they can get heat in their cab while they get the necessary rest, No. 1, it is causing dangerous situations along the roadway, on the exit and entrance ramps to interstate highways, and they are needlessly burning fuel, polluting the atmosphere, and causing excessive use of imported petroleum at a time when we face a real energy crisis.

So while this is a small part of the bill, it is one which responds to very significant needs to maintain safety for the traveling public, especially the truckers, and also to eliminate air pollution that comes from idling trucks.

Another program that I think is vitally important to empower the improvements in tolling, section 1609, deals with tools for toll programs. One of the effective things that has been used in many highway locations for raising revenue and regulating the flow of traffic is tolling. This bill modifies the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Program, the ISRRP, and establishes a new variable toll pricing program. This variable pricing program replaces the pilot program which was authorized in the previous TEA-21.

The new variable toll pricing program enables the use of variable toll pricing on congested facilities in order to increase mobility and improve air quality. This says that the Secretary can permit a State or public authority to toll any highway, bridge, or tunnel, including facilities on the interstate system, to manage high levels of congestion or reduce emissions in a nonattainment area or maintenance area.

This is extremely important when you look at the kinds of congestion we have in many areas during high traffic time. If there are tolls imposed when there would otherwise be heavy congestion, then those who must necessarily travel at that time can continue to do so by paying a toll. This is the ultimate market-based system for assuring that people who do not have to travel at high congestion times will not. Obviously, this means better traffic flow, this means less congestion, and therefore less pollution. So I think this is extremely important.

The Secretary may permit a State or public authority to manage the levels. The States must provide the Secretary with a description of the congestion and air quality problems, and the goals. Any State or public authority already operating under a cooperative agreement under the existing pricing pilot program of TEA-21 can continue under the existing laws.

We also have included some changes in the tolling requirements because in some States there are interstates which are badly out of date and in need of substantial rehabilitation. In the current laws, the provision for establishing tolls on existing interstates has been limited to replacement. If you have ever traveled I-70 in the State of Missouri, which is the lifeline for our State and for much of the Nation for east-west traffic going from coast to coast, certainly traveling between Kansas City and St. Louis, you will find that there are tremendous delays occasioned because the roads are inadequate. They are two-lane roads that are like driving in city traffic, they are so filled with cars and congestion.

In addition, when there are accidents on these roads, it is not uncommon for us to experience an hour or 2-hour delay. In one instance, I managed to miss a 7-hour delay by taking some back roads which I knew about to get around a major disaster.

This measure expands the ability to say if it is substantial rehabilitation or reconstruction, the State, if it chooses, could use tolls to improve an interstate.

Right now, Interstate 70 has the distinction of being the first toll road in the United States. But it also means it is a half a century old and it is at least 20 years out of date. The total cost for repairing it and replacing it is about $3 billion.

Some of my colleagues will be surprised to know that I have not asked in this bill for $3 billion to replace this vital national link. But I do believe we need to provide options for States to deal with problems such as this one. Whether they do it is going to be up to them. In the State of Missouri, there would have to be a vote of the people.

They would have to authorize the issuance of bonds and a tolling authority. This does not by any means say we are going to put tolls on it. It provides an option for the legislature, the Governor, the Department of Transportation to consider as they look at how they want to deal with one of these very significant highway corridors, which has become far too often a parking lot rather than a means of facilitating transportation between our two major cities and for people traveling from far beyond, going east to west through the heartland of the Nation, through the State of Missouri.

I think this is a very important provision and one which will provide States reasonable flexibility, not allowing them, willy-nilly, to take roads already financed through the interstate program, to impose tolls on them to finance other activities, but to make sure that we continue to realize the dream of those who initially formulated the interstate highway program to make sure that we can see traffic continue to proceed.

Let me move to another provision in the bill. It is section 1610, which merely directs the EPA to study the ability to monitor differentiation between fine and coarse particulate matter.

As we find out more about the dangers of pollutants, we find they are greater risks in the fine particulates in many instances which can cause far more significant harm than a coarse particulate because of the impact on the lungs.

Section 1611 adds particulate matter areas to the Congestion, Mitigation, and Air Quality Program. The funds under this provision are apportioned on the basis of a ratio of total weighted population of a State's nonattainment or maintenance areas to the total weighted population of all nonattainment or maintenance areas in the Nation.

If you didn't follow me on that, if a State has air quality problems in an area which is one-twentieth of all of the areas in the Nation, then they would get one-twentieth of the total funds available.

It sounds convoluted, but it really targets the CMAQ funds to the areas with greatest needs. Since many areas will need assistance to meet the new 8-hour ozone standard and the new fine particulate matter standard, the CMAQ formula is modified to include those areas. Adjustment factors are used to account for the number of pollutants for areas in nonattainment or maintenance. Section 1611 says CMAQ funds can be used for alternative fuel infrastructure under TEA-21. This bill goes further and encourages the use of CMAQ funds by listing the purchase of alternative fuel and the purchase of biodiesel fuel as eligible activities under CMAQ.

Due to some confusion in some DOT and EPA field and regional offices, we have also clarified that projects to control the extended idling of vehicles are indeed eligible for funding under the CMAQ program.

The bill also fixes oversight under current law that prevents States that do not have any nonattainment or maintenance areas from using CMAQ funds for CMAQ projects. Frankly, this allows us to get more homegrown clean fuels used with the assistance of CMAQ funds.

I happen to know something about soy diesel and about biodiesel. I am a great champion of it, because if you have followed a bus or a truck down the road that is burning straight diesel, you know what an unpleasant smell that can cause and what damage that can do to the environment. Biodiesel is a soybean-based or other biomass-based fuel which operates in a much cleaner burning environment. Several years ago we started a pilot project at the great training facility at Fort Leonard Wood, MO that needed to train soldiers to fight in smoke conditions on the battlefield. They had been burning diesel to provide that smoke. We felt that was not necessarily a good idea to be burning diesel and exposing our finest troops to the diesel pollution and the smoke that was caused. We worked with the Department of Defense to switch that to soy diesel. There was smoke. I asked them after they implemented what the byproducts were. They said, Obviously, we are not polluting the environment with petroleum-based diesel. We are burning a much cleaner soy-based fuel. It is much less harmful to the soldiers. The only problem is it smells like French fries and they get hungry. But given the alternative, that seems to be a good idea.

To the extent we get more buses and trucks using biodiesel, we are going to have greater benefits.

Let me give you two areas where soy diesel or any biodiesel can be a great improvement.

No. 1, firehouses: The fire men and women who live and stay in firehouses have complained for years. When they fire up the firetrucks, they get the diesel fumes coming up into the rest area. Sometimes, our valiant firefighters have to live and sleep in heavily polluted diesel- fuel-soaked areas. This is not only unhealthy, but it is very unpleasant. Fire stations have been some of the first places where we have used biodiesel. It has been extremely popular. Certainly when we are trying to talk about taking care of our first responders and the valiant firefighters who are on the line making sure the engines and the firetrucks below them are burning a clean-burning feel, it is a step in the right direction.

Another important area we have talked a lot about is school bus safety. When you have kids on school buses, the fumes from petroleum- based diesel come into that school bus. Do you know where they are the most dangerous? They are most dangerous when they are at low levels-- where the small children are. The smallest children are likely to be exposed to petroleum-based diesel fumes.

We are working to encourage more and more school buses to use soy diesel, and put aside the fact that kids are going to get hungry when they smell something that smells like french fries. But it is vitally important that we lessen the danger to our schoolchildren as well as lessening the use of diesel fuel and providing a significant benefit to those who produce soybean and other biomass.

I see a couple of our colleagues are here. Senator Thomas wishes to speak. We have lots more to talk about, but I will discontinue at this point and thank the Chair and thank my colleagues for coming to the floor.

Mr. President, we are checking with our colleagues on the possibility of setting a judicial nomination. As soon as we find out whether that is acceptable, we will ask consent.

Mr. President, we have heard lots of reasons why this bill is not a good bill, why we don't want to go to this bill, why we shouldn't be moving a highway bill. I have talked about some of those reasons, but let me share with you some information that indicates how the people of America think.

The Zogby International Survey Group did a broad-based survey of American voters. Nearly 70 percent of the voters contacted, in February 2003, said they believe America is facing a transportation capacity crisis, that our Nation's roads, airports, and mass transit systems are struggling to handle a growing population and economy.

Fifty-six percent overall and 79 percent of young women with children said traffic congestion is depriving them of more time with their families or for leisure activities today than just 5 years ago.

I don't think these answers should surprise any of us.

Since 1982, the U.S. population has grown by almost 19 percent, the number of registered motor vehicles has increased by 36 percent, and the vehicle miles traveled has ballooned by 72 percent. And--surprise-- over the past 20 years we have added less than 5 percent to road capacity, and even less than that to public transit.

What are the conditions of roads in local communities?

Forty-eight percent of those surveyed by Zogby said they were either fair or poor. When you move to Hispanic Americans, 75 percent said their communities have either fair or poor road conditions.

This is a problem in communities. This is a problem particularly for citizens who are maybe at a disadvantage in their community.

This survey's results come from a poll of over 1,000 voters nationwide, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percent.

I think some of the other findings are pretty important.

Eighty percent of the people polled think the Nation's highways and public transit networks are extremely important or very important to the U.S. economy. That is why we are here. Eighty percent of our constituents think highways and transportation networks are important. That is what this bill is all about. That is why we want to get everybody together to move this bill.

I urge my colleagues, if you have problems with particular portions of the bill, offer amendments. That is how this body functions. We would like to have good-faith amendments that seek to make changes which are necessary so we can move forward in a reasonable manner.

I think the people of America, particularly the 80 percent who say it is important, deserve to see us vote on issues that are of importance to them.

Eight in 10 of the people surveyed agree that an investment in highways, bridges, and public transit should be considered an important element in homeland security and national defense.

Ninety percent believe it is important that their representatives in Congress fight to ensure sufficient Federal

funding for transportation improvement projects in their local areas. I think some States must be lower than that because I think in my State it is higher than 90 percent. So some may have only 80 percent who think it is important.

Two-thirds of Americans say roads and public transit play a vitally important role in their life.

These are scientific surveys that merely confirm what I and many of my colleagues already know: If you go back to your home State and have a meeting about highway and transportation funding, you better get a big hall. I have had people come out to fill any hall that I have scheduled a meeting in to talk about it because they want to know more. They know it is important. I think this is vitally important.

I know there are some who may take a different view. Some people claim building more roads just causes more traffic. They even say you can't build your way out of traffic congestion. They are the zero sum game people, the ones who say there will just be more congestion.

Well, congestion is getting worse at a frightening pace in America. I believe the primary reason is a lack of adequate highway and public transportation capacity, not only in our major urban and suburban areas but in rural areas as well. As I have said several times, that is why we are killing people in Missouri. We don't have adequate highway transportation, particularly in rural areas.

Even as we spend more wasted time sitting in gridlocked traffic, many well-intentioned Americans, spurred on by the rhetoric of some of the extreme advocacy groups who want us all to ride bicycles--and I love to ride bicycles, but those won't get me to work and back, particularly when we have icy roads, as we do here, or when we have to take more people with us--are convinced that adding road capacity only causes more traffic congestion, more air pollution, more waste of precious fuels.

I think the answer to that is very clear: Research data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Texas Transportation Institute and common sense, if you and I just sit back and think about it, proves just about the opposite. The real problem is our lack of resolve to provide meaningful solutions to traffic congestion through new capital and operational investments. The failure to do so actually results in tons of unnecessary air pollution and billions of gallons of wasted motor fuel.

The Zogby poll found that 70 percent of America is facing a transportation capacity crisis, and all of these people realize we need, as a nation, the investment in transportation.

Talk about a drag on the economy, according to the Texas Transportation Urban Mobility Report, absent substantial new investments in highway and public transportation capacity, transportation operations across the Nation, the economic cost of traffic congestion in the Nation, lost productivity, wasted motor fuel will grow from about $67.5 billion in 2000 to almost $100 billion by 2009. That is one of the reasons we seek to have the investment. Yes, $255 billion is a large amount. It is not all going to highways. It comes from highway user taxes, but it goes to mass transit; it goes to congestion mitigation; it goes to scenic easements, to other things that improve the environment in which we live.

If we don't make these investments, the Texas Transportation Institute forecasts that over this period the average road speed in America's 675 largest urban communities will fall from about 42.3 miles per hour to 40.3 miles per hour. If you believe, as I do, that time is money, that reduction will continue to grow what is really a hidden tax levied on American consumers as transportation labor productivity decreases and costs increase.

Another one of the problems we have with congestion is pollution. The good news, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data, is that motor vehicle emissions have declined dramatically since the 1970s, thanks in part to the developments in new automotive and motor fuels technology. Emissions of carbon monoxide are down 45 percent since 1970, volatile organic compound emissions are down 60 percent, particulate matter emissions are down 47 percent, nitrogen oxide emissions are down 5 percent, and lead emissions have been eliminated.

The bad stuff is being reduced. We are getting the bad stuff out. This remarkable environmental achievement, which is responsible for most of the air quality improvement in the United States over the past three decades, was accomplished at the same time the number of licensed motor vehicles in the United States grew 87 percent and total vehicle miles traveled soared by 125 percent. Unfortunately, traffic congestion is retarding clean air progress just as it is retarding American productivity and economic growth.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:55 today, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar No. 457, the nomination of Mark Filip to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois.

I further ask unanimous consent that following 5 minutes for debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member or their designees, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination; further, that following the vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Reserving the right to object, there is some question on this side about the amendment being an amendment to the commerce title, and at this point we are not prepared to give consent to that. We want to work with the Senator who has been working in good faith, but I have been asked, since this is a matter that relates to a different section of the bill, to hold off. We can work through this if we can go with the original consent.

Mr. President, on this side I am not authorized to enter into that type of UC. I assure the Senator and my colleagues on the other side we will work with them. There is a concern about moving into the commerce title. We will work with him if we can move forward on the consent for the judge vote; then we will work on this, if we can get consent for that.

I believe at this point it is necessary to revise the unanimous consent. First, I say to my friend from North Dakota that the title he wants to amend has not been offered. That is a problem on which we are going to have to work. We have only offered the EPW portion.

I asked unanimous consent that there be 5 minutes equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member and, thereafter, there be a vote on the nomination of Mark R. Filip, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois.

I renew my request. Following the 5 minutes, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation and, following the vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help bring about a more reliable system of medical justice for all Americans.

Earlier this month, we had a robust debate on a critical issue-- medical liability reform. Though a majority of the Members of this body wanted to begin working to pass the bill, we didn't have the 60 Senators necessary to begin the real work on the legislation.

I co-sponsored that bill, the Patients First Act, and I still support it. Passing the Patients First Act would be an important short-term step to controlling the excesses in our legal system that have sent medical liability insurance premiums through the roof. Skyrocketing premiums are forcing doctors to move their practices to States with better legal environments and lower insurance premiums. This is endangering the availability of critical healthcare services in many areas of Wyoming and other states.

Throughout our debate, I heard many of my colleagues say that they wanted to work on this issue, but that they simply could not support the bill as it stood. We heard that the bill approaches the issue from too narrow of a perspective. We heard that the bill's caps on non- economic damages are unfair to patients, despite the fact that the bill places no limits whatsoever on a patient's right to recover all quantifiable economic damages.

While I disagree with my colleagues who oppose the Patients First Act, I

respect their opposition. I also trust that they sincerely want to help solve our Nation's medical liability and litigation crisis.

During the debate this month, I noticed something interesting. While we argued the ``pros and cons'' of the bill, no one stood up to defend our current system of medical litigation. Now, we heard a lot about the caps, and the insurance industry, and we heard Senators say that ``Yes, there is a problem, but the bill before us won't solve it.''

One thing we didn't hear was a rousing defense of our medical litigation system. Even some of the lawyers in this body agreed that frivolous lawsuits are a problem and that our medical litigation system needs reform.

Why didn't we hear anyone defend the merits of our current medical litigation system? It's because our system doesn't work. It simply doesn't work for patients or for healthcare providers.

Compensation to patients injured by healthcare errors is neither prompt nor fair. The randomness and delay associated with medical litigation does not contribute to timely, reasonable compensation for most injured patients. Some injured patients get huge jury awards, while many others get nothing at all.

Let's look at the facts. In 1991, a group of researchers published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study, known as the Harvard Medical Practice Study, was the basis for the Institute of Medicine's estimate that nearly 100,000 people die every year from healthcare errors.

As part of their study, the researchers reviewed the medical records of a random sample of more than 31,000 patients in New York State. They matched those records with statewide data on medical malpractice claims. The researchers found that nearly 30 percent of injuries caused by medical negligence resulted in temporary disability, permanent disability or death. However, less than 2 percent of those who were injured by medical negligence filed a claim. These figures suggest that most people who suffer negligent injuries don't receive any compensation.

When a patient does decide to litigate, only a few recover anything. Only one of every ten medical malpractice cases actually goes to trial, and of those cases, plaintiffs win less than one of every five. In addition, patients who file suit and are ultimately successful must wait a long time for their compensation--the average length of a medical malpractice action filed in state court is about 30 months.

While the vast majority of malpractice cases that go to trial are settled before the court hands down a verdict, the settlements even then don't guarantee that patients are compensated fairly, particularly after legal fees are subtracted. Research shows that for every dollar paid in malpractice insurance premiums, about 40 cents in compensation is actually paid to the plaintiff--the rest goes for legal fees, court costs, and other administrative expenditures.

To sum up: most patients injured by negligence don't file claims or receive compensation. Few of those that do file claims and go to court recover anything, and those who are successful wait a long time for their compensation. And those who settle out of court end up receiving only 40 cents for every dollar that healthcare providers pay in liability insurance premiums.

It's hard to say that our medical litigation system does right by patients in light of those facts. Unfortunately, our system doesn't work for healthcare providers either.

Earlier, I spoke about those Harvard researchers who found that fewer than 2 percent of those who were injured by medical negligence even filed a claim. As they reviewed the medical records for their study, the researchers also found another interesting fact--most of the providers against whom claims were eventually filed were not negligent at all.

That's right--most providers who were sued had not committed a negligent act.

In matching the records they reviewed to data on malpractice claims, the Harvard researchers found 47 actual malpractice claims. In only 8 of the 47 claims did they find evidence that medical malpractice had caused an injury. Even more amazingly, the physician reviewers found no evidence of any medical injury, negligent or not, in 26 of the 47 claims. However, 40 percent of these cases where they found no evidence of negligence nonetheless resulted in a payment by the provider. Basically, the researchers found no positive relationship between medical negligence and compensation.

That study was based on 1984 data. The same group of researchers conducted another study in Colorado and Utah in 1992, and they found the same thing. As in the 1984 study, they found that only 3 percent of patients who suffered an injury as a result of negligence actually sued. And again, physician reviewers could not find negligence in most of the cases in which lawsuits were filed.

Now, I assume that the patients who sued had either an adverse medical outcome, or at least an outcome that was less satisfactory than the patient expected. But our medical litigation system is not supposed to compensate patients for adverse outcomes or dissatisfaction--it's supposed to compensate patients who are victims of negligent behavior. It's supposed to be a deterrent to substandard medical care.

It's not fair to doctors and hospitals that they must pay to defend against meritless lawsuits. Nor is it fair that they must face a choice between settling for a small sum, even if they aren't at fault, so that they avoid getting sucked into a whirlpool of our medical litigation system.

It's not hard to understand why physicians and hospitals and their insurers want to stay out of court. When they lose, the decisions are increasingly resulting in mega-awards based on subjective ``non- economic'' damages. The number of awards exceeding $1 million grew by 50 percent between the periods of 1994-1996 and 1999-2000. Today, more than half of all jury awards exceed $1 million.

As a result, when a patient suffers a bad outcome and sues, providers have an incentive to settle the case out of court, even if the provider isn't at fault. But is this how our medical litigation system is supposed to work--as a tool for shaking down our healthcare providers?

Let's face it--our medical litigation system is broken. It doesn't work for patients or providers. Even worse, it replaces the trust in the provider-patient relationship with distrust.

Then, when courts and juries render verdicts with huge awards that bear no relation to the conduct of the defendants, this destabilizes the insurance markets and sends premiums skyrocketing. This forces many physicians to curtail, move or drop their practices, leaving patients without access to necessary medical care. This is a particular problem in states like Wyoming, where we traditionally struggle with recruiting doctors and other healthcare providers.

Perhaps we could live with this flawed system if litigation served to improve quality or safety, but it doesn't. Litigation discourages the exchange of critical information that could be used to improve the quality and safety of patient care. The constant threat of litigation also drives the inefficient, costly and even dangerous practice of ``defensive medicine.''

Yes, indeed, defensive medicine is dangerous. A recent study found that one of every 1200 children who receive a CAT scan may die later in life from radiation-induced cancer. Knowing this puts a physician faced with anxious parents in a difficult situation. Does the doctor use his or her professional judgment and tell the parents of a sick child not to worry, or does the doctor order the CAT scan and subject the child to radiation that is probably unnecessary, just to provide some protection against a possible lawsuit?

We have a medical litigation system in which many patients who are hurt by negligent actions receive no compensation for their loss. Those who do receive compensation end up with about 40 cents of every premium dollar after legal fees and other costs are subtracted. And the likelihood and the outcomes of lawsuits and settlements bear little relation to whether or not a healthcare provider was at fault.

We like to say that justice is blind. With respect to our medical litigation system, I would say that justice is absent and nowhere to be found.

During our debate on the Patients First Act, I said that the current medical liability crisis and the shortcomings of our medical litigation system make it clear that it is time for a major change. I also said that regardless of how we voted, we all should work toward replacing the current medical tort liability scheme with a more reliable and predictable system of medical justice.

Today, I am introducing a bill that would help achieve that goal.

Most of us are familiar with the report on medical errors from the Institute of Medicine, also known as the IOM. Many of us may be less familiar with another report that the IOM published earlier this year. That report is called ``Fostering Rapid Advances in Healthcare: Learning from System Demonstrations.''

Our Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, challenged the IOM to identify bold ideas that would challenge conventional thinking about some of the most vexing problems facing our healthcare system. In response, an IOM committee developed this report, which identified a set of demonstration projects that committee members felt would break new ground and yield a very high return-on-investment in terms of dollars and health.

Medical liability was one of the areas upon which the IOM committee focused. The IOM suggested that the federal government should support demonstration projects in the states. These demonstrations should be based on ``replacing tort liability with a system of patient-centered and safety-focused non-judicial compensation.''

The bill I am introducing today is in the spirit of this IOM report. This bill, the Reliable Medical Justice Act, would authorize funding for States to create demonstration programs to test alternatives to current medical tort litigation.

The funding to States under this bill would cover planning grants for developing proposals based on the models or other innovative ideas. Funding to States would also include the initial costs of getting the alternatives up and running.

The Reliable Medical Justice Act would require participating states and the Federal Government to collaborate in continuous evaluations of the results of the alternatives as compared to traditional tort litigation. This way, all States and the federal government can learn from new approaches.

By funding demonstration projects, I believe Congress could enable States to experiment with and learn from ideas that could provide long- term solutions to the current medical liability and litigation crisis.

In introducing this bill, I wanted to provide some alternative ideas that would contribute to the debate. As a result, the bill describes three models to which states could look in designing their alternatives.

For instance, a State could provide healthcare providers and organizations with immunity from lawsuits if they make a timely offer to compensate an injured patient for his or her actual net economic loss, plus a payment for pain and suffering if experts deem such a payment to be appropriate. This could give a healthcare provider who makes an honest mistake the chance to make amends financially with a patient, without the provider fearing that their honesty would land them in a lawsuit.

Another idea would be for a state to set up classes of avoidable injuries and a schedule of compensation for them, and then establish an administrative board to resolve claims related to those injuries. A scientifically rigorous process of identifying preventable injuries and setting appropriate compensation would be preferable to the randomness of the current system.

Still another option would be for a state to establish a special healthcare court for adjudicating medical malpractice cases. For this idea to work, the State would need to ensure that the presiding judges have expertise in and an understanding of healthcare, and allow them to make binding rulings on issues like causation compensation, and standards of care.

We already have specialized courts for complicated issues like taxes and highly charged issues like substance abuse and domestic violence. With all the flaws in our current medical litigation system, perhaps we should consider special courts for the complex and emotional issue of medical malpractice.

I believe one thing in our medical liability debate is absolutely clear--people are demanding change. Ten States have passed some liability reform in the past year, and another 17 have debated it. States are heeding this call for change, and Congress should support those efforts.

My own State, Wyoming, had a lively legislative debate on medical liability reform this year, but we have a constitutional amendment that prohibits limits on the amounts that can be recovered through lawsuits. The Wyoming Senate considered a bill to amend our State's constitution to create a commission on healthcare errors. That commission would have had the power to review claims, decide if healthcare negligence had occurred, and determine the compensation for the death or injury according to a schedule or formula provided by law. However, the bill died in a tie vote on the Wyoming Senate floor.

According to one of the sponsors of the bill, Senator Charlie Scott, one of the biggest obstacles to passage was the uncertainty surrounding this new idea. No one had any basis for knowing what a proper schedule or formula for compensation would be. No one knew how much the system might cost, or how much injured patients would recover compared to what they recover now.

Senator Scott wrote me to say that federal support for finding answers to these questions might help the bill's sponsors sufficiently respond to the legitimate concerns of their fellow Wyoming legislators. We should be helping state legislators like Senator Scott develop thoughtful and innovative ideas such as the one he has proposed. That's one of the reasons I am offering this bill.

Clearly, the American people and their elected representatives have identified the need to reform our current medical litigation system. The United States Senate did not vote to proceed to the Patients First Act this month, but no member of this body denied that there is a medical liability crisis, or that Congress needs to act sooner rather than later.

While we continue that debate, we ought to lend a hand to States that are working to change their current medical litigation systems and to develop creative alternatives that could work much better for patients and providers. The States have been policy pioneers in many areas-- workers' compensation, welfare reform, and electricity de-regulation, to name three. Medical litigation should be the next item on the agenda of the laboratories of democracy that are our 50 States.

No one questions the need to restore reliability to our medical justice system. But how do we begin the process? One way is to foster innovation by encouraging States to develop more rational and predictable methods for resolving healthcare injury claims. And that is what the Reliable Medical Justice Act aims to do.

In the long run, we would all be better off with a more reliable system of medical justice than we have today. I know that my fellow Senators recognize this, so I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will work with me on this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the U.S. economy is still the greatest economy in the world and our credit markets have helped to make that happen. During the past decade, our credit markets have taken advantage of technology and innovation in order to provide more consumers with more timely credit approvals and with more financing options. Nowhere is there a better example of this than our housing market.

Today, the time it takes to review a mortgage application and approve it has been cut drastically by our financial institutions. Consumers find that they have a wide array of financing options they can choose from to secure the purchase of a home--from fixed-rated loans to variable-rate loans, or even adjustable rate loans. While the wide variety of choices has helped more families to purchase homes in the past decade, even more families could buy homes if they understood how the credit market works.

Although there are many pluses to the expansion of the availability of credit there is also a downside. Individuals may get in over their heads when too much credit is made available to them. In addition, identity theft is a bigger problem than it has been before. Consumers need to educate themselves about the potential problems they might face and how to avoid them. Increasing consumer financial literacy is not just about providing information, however, it is about giving families the proper informational tools so that they can put their financial affairs in order.

Today, my friend and colleague, Senator Stabenow and I are introducing the ``Financial Literacy Community Outreach Act'' to help to bring together all of the federal government's financial literacy programs under one roof.

The Department of Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Labor are just a few of the many federal agencies that have established excellent financial literacy programs and initiatives. These programs cover a wide variety of topics ranging from how to save, spend, and invest to programs that provide guidance on how to prepare for retirement, select a pension plan, or purchase a home. Still others help individuals avoid the threat of identity theft.

Unfortunately, consumers attempting to find financial literacy information from the federal government may find that information scattered throughout the government. Our bill would provide a one-stop- shop where consumers could find the appropriate financial literacy programs for their needs. A single web site and a toll-free number will go a long way toward bringing this vital information to the individuals and families who need it.

In addition, the bill establishes the Financial Literacy Commission, a body comprised of the heads of the federal agencies with financial literacy programs. The Commission will ensure that the federal government has a cohesive and coordinated federal policy on financial literacy as it provides Congress with vital information on what can be improved in our government's financial literacy outreach efforts. In addition to the web site and the toll-free number, the Commission will highlight successful public/private partnerships already existing around the country.

One such partnership is thriving in my home state of Wyoming. The Wyoming Partners in HomeBuyer Education, led by the Wyoming Community Development Authority, includes local banks, real estate agents, the University of Wyoming, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Fannie Mae, in the effort to provide distance learning to potential home-buyers through the use of compressed video technology. This training program is perfect for a state like Wyoming in that home-buyers in rural communities have access to all of the essential elements of the home buying experience just like their urban community counterparts.

To date, more than 3,000 individuals have completed the training program and it has led to making the home-buying process easier and more understandable for rural and urban families alike.

I strongly believe that this bill will help millions of families find the appropriate financial literacy materials they need to make better credit and investment decisions.

It is my pleasure to be cosponsoring this bill with Senator Stabenow because of our shared concern about making financial literacy available to more families across the country. In addition, I would like to recognize Senator Sarbanes' tremendous effort to focus our attention on financial literacy, both when he was Chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs last year and as Ranking Member of the Committee this year. He has been an extraordinary advocate for this important issue. Chairman Shelby of the Committee has also recognized the importance of this issue, as just this week, it was the subject of a hearing by the Committee. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee and in the full Senate to ensure that we expand and build upon the government's present financial literacy efforts to help individuals and families increase their knowledge of and access to our credit and investment markets.

Mr. President, every morning, from the time we wake up to the time we turn out the lights and go to sleep, we all spend a good portion of our day in cyberspace. Probably without thinking, each time we head out to the internet, we broadcast some very specific information about our lives as we use our computers for email. Each time we use our cell phones we rely on a sense of privacy about the information we convey, which may not be present. And, when we use hand held devices to send quick messages back and forth to friends, coworkers and family we assume no one else is listening or receiving our information, which often includes social security numbers, family names and even credit card and pin numbers.

Cyberspace is a high tech criminal's dream and it has helped contribute to the fastest growing crime in America--identity theft.

Simply put, identity theft is the ability to impersonate someone else and steal their credit, their money and even their identity for their own use.

Although the use of high-tech devices has certainly contributed to the proliferation of identity theft, many individuals have been victimized by simple criminals who have carefully picked through trash cans and mailboxes to find old receipts and social security numbers. Regardless of the medium through which the information is collected, identity theft is the result of criminals who have learned how to manipulate a growing network of information--some public, some private--and then use that data to their own advantage.

The problem with identity theft is that it is not confined to one state. It affects Americans from every walk of life from coast to coast. Some Americans may discover that someone else has been using their social security number to obtain fraudulent employment, while others learn that people have been using fraudulent identification cards to obtain lines of credit and then leaving innocent victims to deal with the bills they left behind.

People from small States like Wyoming are not immune to this new crime wave. Although there are only 493,000 people in Wyoming, we have the same rate of identity theft per capita as is present anywhere else in the United States. That is why we have to approach this issue from every angle, taking a systemic approach that includes prevention, enforcement and assistance to victims of identity theft.

Today, we will take the first step with victim's assistance for this crime. I believe we have to provide some real options for our constituents who are trying to recover from the trauma that identity theft has caused in their lives. That is why my colleague from Washington and I are introducing legislation that will make it easier for victims to get the information they need to begin reversing the damage and lasting effects of this crime. Our bill, the Identity Theft Victim's Assistance Act of 2003, is very similar to a bill we offered last year that passed the Senate unanimously in November. I expect and hope for the same result this year since this is a growing problem and the need for action on this issue grows more urgent with each passing day.

Our bill includes key provisions that would allow victims to work with businesses to obtain information related to cases of identity theft and then contact credit reporting agencies to block false information on credit reports. In drafting this legislation we worked with all of the stakeholders to ensure a balance between the needs of consumers and the needs of small businesses, banks and other credit agencies.

The reintroduction of this bill is timely given the recent hearings in the Senate Banking and Commerce Committees and recent action by both the House and Administration.

Earlier this month, the House Financial Services Subcommittee reported a bill called the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. Also known as the FACT Act, the bill includes a provision nearly identical to Section 4 of our bill. Section 4 of our bill requires consumer credit reporting agencies to block information that appears on a victim's credit report as a result of identity theft, provided the victim did not knowingly obtain goods, services or money as a result of the blocked transaction.

Our provision, which amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act, was also addressed in a recent hearing before the Senate Banking Committee. On July 10, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission testified that ``blocking would mitigate the harm to consumers' credit record that can result from identity theft'' and recommended that this practice be codified.

I am also encouraged by similar recommendations from the Treasury Department that would require credit reporting agencies to cease reporting allegedly fraudulent account information on consumer reports when the consumer submits a police report or similar document, unless there is a reason to believe the report is false.

Providing consumers with the tools necessary to recover from identity theft is the first step in providing real relief to the hundreds of thousands of individuals whose lives have already been turned upside down by identity theft. I urge my colleagues to work with me as we move forward on this important issue and make progress on the reauthorization of critical legislation like the Fair Credit Reporting Act. We must take action this year before the crime of identity theft hurts the hundreds of thousands of working people and families who are expected to become victims this year.

Yesterday, we had several occasions where we were trying to stay on the bill, and we kept saying: All right, one more person, one more person, one more person.

As manager of the bill, I am going to do everything I can parliamentarily to stay on the bill and not get into other subjects.

At 2:30.

To do everything to accommodate the Senator from Florida, what I would like to do is stay on the bill until later on this afternoon, and at that time I am sure we are going to come to a point where, because of other things that are happening, there are not going to be Senators who want to speak on the bill, and then we could go to this so the Senator would have the time he requested.

I have no objection if he changes his 3:30 to 5 o'clock. There are some things happening that affect every Senator in here tonight having to do with the National Prayer Breakfast, and I would like to accommodate them as well.

The majority leader will have to get in on this, but I would say even earlier than that. We are going to have amendments. In fact, we have some amendments that will be ready today. We need to get to those and get this bill moving.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Yes. I have a letter I read yesterday. It is dated February 2, 2004. I have not heard anything either way about whether or not they are supporting this legislation. But they outlined a set of principles yesterday to which our bill complies. I think the minority leader covered the three criteria that were used that would keep them from opposing the bill, and I believe they have been met. We talked about it yesterday. One is to not increase gas taxes. Second, it would not have any kind of bonding arrangement. Third, that it would not get in the general fund.

The third one is where there is some debate. I trust the Senate Finance Committee. I talked to both sides, Democrats and Republicans, and they came up with something I think meets the criteria. I am satisfied it does.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, let me make an observation. We talked about this bill for several hours. Almost everyone who came down was objecting to what their State would get from this formula. When you compare this, starting with the same basic structure of a formula as we did in TEA-21--and remember, in TEA-21, we had the minimum guarantee.

What that did was take arbitrary political percentages and apply them in order to get votes. We have done far more. This takes into consideration the streamlining provisions about which we haven't even talked. We spent months on this in the committee, as our committee members know.

Safety and freight areas have not really been addressed before. This is something of which we can be proud. I have to say, when we put together the charts of all 50 States, there isn't one State that is not treated fairly, doesn't have an increase and doesn't have some kind of logic balancing the donee-donor, balancing the fast-growing States and the low-population States.

All these points are considered, and I think it is a very good bill. I agree with all on the committee.

Mr. President, yesterday we started through this bill. It is a rather lengthy bill. It covers a lot of provisions that haven't even been discussed, and I think a lot of Members are not really aware of some parts of this bill.

As the chairman of the committee, I thought it an obligation to go through this section by section, and I did go through sections 1104 through 1204, where we talked about how this was put together, how the formulas were put together. I also spent about an hour talking about the environmental improvements that are made in this bill.

I confess there are many things in this bill that I would rather have done in a different way, and I am sure Senator Reid and Senator Jeffords would say the same thing. In fact, they have said the same thing. Since we will have to get through this today at some point, I would like to go ahead and start with section 1205 and finish what we started yesterday. I hope any Members who are interested in making comments or offering amendments will come and do so, because I will be doing this in order to get through the bill.

Section 1205 is one in which I was particularly interested. Senator Reid yesterday talked about Daniel Patrick Moynihan and the contributions he made over the years. I felt compelled to stand up and remind him that Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a Tulsa boy. He was from Tulsa, OK, and was one of my very favorite people.

I think it is very appropriate that section 1205 is the designation of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Interstate Highway as a part of the bill. Interstate Highway 86 in the State of New York is specifically designated as the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Interstate Highway in memory of our late colleague.

There are several others who have said good things about him. In fact, in the years I have been in the Senate, Senator Moynihan is the only Senator

about whom I have never heard one negative thing.

Section 1301 is the Federal share section. It continues the statutory provisions that lay out what the Federal share for the highway project will be for different States based on the amount of Federal land within their State. The Federal share provisions of current law use a sliding scale. This scale permits States with large portions of Federal land to match Federal funds with fewer State dollars. That is only reasonable because they are not collecting taxes off of these lands and they should not have to pay the same match.

Due to the decreased taxing ability of the States with a higher percentage of Federal lands, these States are given access to a higher Federal contribution for highway projects within their State. The bill before us today modifies this provision slightly to simplify the calculation used to determine the Federal share rates that apply to each individual State.

I might add that in this bill there are certain things my colleagues will see consistently throughout. One is simplification. One is to put it in language that we can all understand, that the public can understand, that our people back home can understand, and so that the departments of transportation in the various States will have a clear understanding as well, and they will take all of these complicated interpretations.

Another thing my colleagues will find all the way through is a streamlining effort to try to get more roads for the dollar. I think we have successfully done that, reaching a lot of compromises. So this is what my colleagues will see as we go through the bill section by section.

Section 1302 is the transfer of highway and transit funds. There is a technical fix that was requested by the Federal Highway Administration that clarifies that title 23 funds, that is the highway dollars, can be transferred to the transit administration from State to State or from State to another Federal agency as long as the project to be funded is eligible under title 23. I think that is a very reasonable approach.

An example of when this authority could be used is a State that has a congestion problem at or near a border crossing. They may determine that the problem is caused in part by inadequate parking facilities for the Customs Service to conduct truck inspections. To solve their larger congestion problem, it makes sense to provide money to the Customs Service to build parking lot facilities for truck inspections. This has been done administratively in the past, but section 1302 provides very clear guidance so they do not have to sit around and guess what in fact is going to come up.

Section 1303, the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, which is referred to as TIFIA, was established for the first time in TEA-21 to provide Federal credit assistance to major transportation investments. The TIFIA program has proven to be an innovative and successful addition to the conventional grant and reimbursement highway program.

After watching the TIFIA program succeed as a funding device for a few large projects during TEA-21 and after receiving input from stakeholders and recommendations from the administration, the committee bill has made a few changes to the TIFIA program to expand its scope and increase its usability.

The amount of the Federal credit assistance cannot exceed 33 percent of a total project cost. TIFIA offers three different types of financial assistance to the large projects: One, direct loans; two, loan guarantees; and, three, standby lines of credit. The bill also lowers the threshold cost for eligible projects from the TEA-21 level of $100 million down to $50 million to make it available to more people and more projects, making TIFIA accessible to a greater number of large highway projects.

Projects are also eligible for TIFIA assistance when costs are anticipated to equal or exceed 20 percent of Federal highway funds apportioned to that particular State. With the increased emphasis this bill places on freight mobility, the definition of eligible freight- related projects is expanded.

I think the Senator was out of the Chamber when I said I eventually wanted to get through this section by section, but I can do this at any time. As soon as the Senator has anything ready, certainly I am interested in taking that up.

Reclaiming my time, I think he had stated he was not prepared to do that right now, but perhaps one will be coming along in a short while.

I have no objection to that. I think it is a good idea, and we will so inform Senator Bond.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we have been trying to get through the explanation of this bill section by section. We have done so now all the way up to section 1304. It seems most people were concerned yesterday about the formula. Now we are addressing another problem. But we have not gotten into the full explanation of the bill. We have gone from section 1104 through section 1303.

I am going to go ahead and proceed. If anyone either has an amendment or wants to be heard on the bill, of course, I will give them that opportunity.

Section 1304 is in regard to the facilitation of international registration plans and international fuel tax agreements.

In response to issues surrounding commerce from Mexico, S. 1072 gives the Secretary of Transportation discretion to provide financial assistance to States participating in the International Registration Plan and the International Fuel Tax Agreement. These States incur certain administrative costs resulting from their service as a home jurisdiction for motor carriers from Mexico.

The International Fuel Tax Agreement and the International Regional Plan are agreements among various U.S. States and Canadian Provinces that facilitate the efficient collection and distribution of fuel taxes and apportioned registration fees among each member jurisdiction.

Under both programs, each motor carrier designates its home State or Province as the jurisdiction responsible for collecting fuel use taxes and fees. Since the implementation of NAFTA, the Mexican Government imposes and collects fuel taxes and registration fees differently from the United States and Canada. The National Governors Association is currently evaluating Mexico and its participation in the IFTA and IRP programs. In the interim, Mexican motor carriers may use individual U.S. States or Canadian Provinces as their home jurisdiction. So we are talking about something that is in the interim until the problem is resolved but is necessary.

Section 1305 is in regard to the National Commission on Future Revenue Sources to Support the Highway Trust Fund and finance the needs of the surface transportation system.

As many of you know, I am personally not one to support expansions of bureaucracy or the creation of innumerable review boards, committees, and commissions. However, this bill creates, and I have found good reason to support, a new temporary--temporary--national commission on future revenue sources to support the highway trust fund and finance the needs of the surface transportation system.

Funding the highway program has already become increasingly more challenging. Even as we debate the funding of this bill, we are confronted with the task of finding innovative and efficient funding methods to capture user fees lost to the fuel tax evasion and a host of other issues that the Finance Committee has done a great job in addressing.

However, one issue that has not been addressed, but must be before the next reauthorization cycle, is Federal incentives for the purchase of hybrid and other fuel-efficient vehicles. Fuel efficiency is a goal I support, but I do not believe it should come at the expense of the highway trust fund. So we have these exemptions, which has the result of reducing the revenues that would otherwise come in, even though the goal or the policy we are trying to establish is, perhaps, an inevitable policy.

We run the risk of making economic and environmental advances at the cost of jeopardizing our primary funding source for the highway trust fund--gas taxes. In recent years, the highway trust fund has seen a decrease in revenues. Constant changes in the automotive industry and the economy as a whole impact user fee revenues. We must continue to identify new and reliable revenue sources to sustain the program.

Most recently, we have seen the increase in the cost of fuel and the spiking that has been going on. That has a direct effect on the amount of revenues that are generated from fuel taxes.

In response to these changing and growing challenges, the new commission created in this bill is established to conduct a comprehensive study of the alternatives available to replace or supplement the existing fuel tax as the principal source of supporting the highway trust fund. We may find that this is going to still remain the principal source, but we do not know because we have never had any central place where we were trying to put together something this creative to replace it.

Specific factors which the commission will examine include, one, the effects of each major tax that goes into the highway trust fund; two, the ability to increase taxes if there are future revenue shortfalls; and, three, potential new sources of revenue to support highway, transit, and other surface transportation programs.

In regard to the scope of the study, the commission is charged with suggesting new or alternative revenue sources to fund the needs of the surface transportation system over the next 30 years or the next 40 years--the next long period of time. It is something we should have done before. This bill might have been easier if we had addressed this in TEA-21.

Now we have, in section 1306, the State infrastructure banks. TEA-21 established a State infrastructure bank pilot program that authorized participation among the States of Missouri, Rhode Island, California, and Florida. This bill reauthorizes the program to allow all States to enter into cooperative agreements with the Secretary of Transportation to set up infrastructure-revolving funds eligible for capitalization with Federal transportation dollars.

The SIB program gives States the capacity to increase the efficiency of their transportation investment and to significantly leverage Federal resources by attracting non-Federal public and private investment.

The program provides greater flexibility to the States by allowing other types of project assistance in addition to the traditional reimbursement grant. States utilizing SIBs are able to provide various forms of nongrant assistance to eligible projects, including at or below market rate subordinate

loans, interest rate buydowns on third party loans, and guarantees and other forms of credit enhancements. Any debt that the SIB issues or guarantees must be of investment grade caliber. The SIB program represents one more innovative financing option. We believe, after having done this with three or four States, that it is something that should be expanded to other States. This is a very positive thing.

Section 1401 is the Highway Safety Improvement Program.

Along with the new equity bonus program, the bill's new core Safety program is one of the crowning pillars of this legislation. It is both devastating and deplorable that motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among American's between the age of 1 and 34-years-old. In 2002 alone, nearly 43,000 people died on our Nation's highways. Although the fatality rate has decreased when compared to the growing number of vehicle miles traveled, the total number of fatal crashes has gradually increased over the life of TEA-21. Through a reorganization of existing safety programs and a significantly increased Federal investment, S. 1072, appropriately referred to as SAFETEA, strives to combat one of the greatest threats faced on our roads today. Not only is the loss of life to unsafe roads and conditions tragic, but vehicle crashes have a huge economic effect manifested in medical costs, property damage, insurance, and the effects of congestion.

In response to the need for safer roads and road conditions, this bill gives heightened attention to improving traffic safety by creating a new core Highway Safety Improvement Program. Under TEA-21 States were required to set-aside 10 percent of their funds apportioned under the Surface Transportation Program for safety projects to eliminate hazardous locations and improve safety at highway-railway crossings. The new Highway Safety Improvement Program preserves the ability of States to continue funding these important projects, while giving the States even greater flexibility to identify and address other traffic safety issues such as work zone safety, traffic enforcement activities, lane and shoulder widening, use of safety warning devices, safety- conscious planning, and improved traffic data collection.

This is just one more effort to recognize that the States are all different. The same shoe does not fit all. We are giving them an expanded role to determine the best way to handle the problems in Vermont as opposed to Oklahoma or any other State.

Recognizing the various and changing safety needs in each State, the bill provides significant flexibility to the States in order to determine how the Federal safety dollars can best be spent to address the areas of greatest need. These are not always the same in each State.

Section 1402 is Operation Lifesaver. Among the existing safety programs that this bill reauthorizes is Operation Lifesaver. This program has proven effective as a national education and awareness campaign dedicated to reducing fatalities and injuries at highway- railway crossings. Operation Lifesaver has utilized various means to educate both drivers and pedestrians about making safe decisions at railroad crossings and has encouraged better engineering to improve safety at rail crossings. Due to the valuable service this program renders and the cost-benefit effectiveness it has sustained, this bill increases funding for the program from $500,000 per year to $600,000 per year and moves the source of funding for Operation Lifesaver from the Surface Transportation Program, STP, to the new Highway Safety Improvement Program.

Section 1403 is license suspension. Another area of concern in regards to highway safety is the intoxicated driver and especial repeat offenders. Current law imposes penalties on States that have not enacted statutes punishing repeat intoxicated drivers with a hard one- year driver's license suspension. However, as the States have reviewed data and adapted their sentencing structures for repeat offenders in this area, they have found that habitual drunk drivers whose license has already been suspended frequently choose to drive without a license, minimizing the effectiveness of the current State of the law. In the interest of public safety, some States have actually accepted the consequences of the Federal sanction and foregoing available Federal funding in order to impose more effective sentencing of these repeat offenders. This bill recognizes the reality of repeat drunk drivers driving on roads with a suspended license and the wisdom of more effective alternative sentencing schemes. Thus, the bill updates the ``repeat offender'' sanction in title 23 of the code to allow States to incorporate ignition interlock or similar devices when sentencing repeat intoxicated drivers.

At this point we have come through all the way to section 1404. I would like to see if the minority leader of the committee, who has been so great to work with, the ranking minority member, Senator Jeffords from Vermont, has any comments to make about these sections.

First, I agree with the ranking member of the committee. We have come a long way. We are ready shortly and will be prepared to deal with some amendments. In the meantime, let's wade through this thing a little bit more.

Section 1404. Bus axle weight exemption. SAFETEA holds over-the-road buses and intrastate public transit buses to the same standards that inner-city transit buses must meet with regard to axle weight, air quality, and requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Specifically, the bill exempts any over-the-road buses or intrastate public transit bus from the maximum gross weight limitations imposed by the State.

Section 1405 is the Safe Routes to School Act. This was a provision that handled a number of compromises. It is one we are all concerned about. It has a continuing emphasis on safety. The bill introduces a new program that directly deals with safe routes to school, a safety improvement program established in SAFETEA. Projects eligible under the Safe Routes to School Program are already eligible under the larger Highway Safety Improvement Program.

However, Safe Routes to School provides a dedicated and protected funding source for pedestrian and bicycle safety projects near schools. The program is limited to projects and activities that will impose safety within 2 miles of primary and secondary schools. It sets aside $70 million per year for infrastructure and behavioral activities, such as sidewalk improvements, traffic-calming measures, speed reduction,

bicycle facilities, pedestrian crossings, traffic signal improvements, public awareness campaigns, and traffic education and enforcement.

I think that is significant. We have noticed, between the time we have been dealing with ISTEA and TEA-21, there have been increased fatalities in our young kids. We expanded this program during the course of our committee consideration. I think it was a good compromise to make on the purchase of equipment.

When conducting projects under the Federal program's authorization under this bill, some States will occasionally find the equipment necessary to complete the project may be cheaper to purchase than it would be to rent for the duration of the project. In such cases, this bill instructs them to conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the purchase of expensive equipment above specified levels in order to evaluate the savings associated with purchasing the equipment compared to renting the equipment for the duration of the project.

Everything we are doing here is trying to get the very most out of the dollars we are spending in terms of safety and equipment and road construction and the other things we are dealing with in S. 1072.

Section 1407 is work zone safety. Over a thousand deaths occurred in work zones during 2002 due to traffic crashes alone. There has been a lot of awareness in the public about this fact and States are trying to deal with it. We felt it appropriate to have some language in this bill. Although work zones represent a critical component of infrastructure development, they also pose a unique safety challenge for those on the road, and to road workers in particular.

S. 1072 attempts to minimize the injuries and fatalities in work zones by imposing insurance requirements, requiring the use of ITS technologies and safety budgeting in construction and contracting. The Secretary of Transportation is directed to encourage States to choose contractors that carry general liability insurance of at least $15 million. Transportation projects costing more than $15 million are encouraged to include continuously monitored work zone intelligent transportation systems, or ITS systems.

Section 1408. Worker injury prevention and free flow of vehicular traffic. In addition to the provision relating to the safety of workers in work zones just mentioned, SAFETEA also directs the Secretary to promulgate regulations requiring road workers to wear high-visibility clothing, with the goal of decreasing worker injury and maintaining a free flow of traffic.

In section 1501, regarding the integration of natural resource concerns into State and metropolitan transportation planning, my counterpart, the ranking minority member, was very interested in a lot of the parts of the bill that deal with natural resource concerns and State and metropolitan transportation planning. If the Senator from Vermont would like to go over some of these sections, starting with section 1501, it might be appropriate since he had a lot to do with these particular areas.

(Mr. SUNUNU assumed the Chair.)

I thank the chairman. As has been pointed out already by one of our members, the bill we are talking about is rather extensive. But it was not done quickly or without the tremendous work of staff and many people who have contributed outside of the staff in listening to people from all over the country before we put the final touch on the bill.

The highway bill provides us with an opportunity every 6 years to give our communities, our businesses and our citizens a real boost by renewing our commitment to the world's most extensive transportation system. I am proud to be a leader in that effort this year.

Through the bill before us today, we will improve the condition and the performance of our roads and bridges, thousands and millions of them. That means both safer travel today and lower maintenance costs tomorrow.

I am particularly pleased that our work continues the transportation partnership established under President Eisenhower during the Interstate period and expanded with passage of ISTEA 12 years ago. That means that local leaders, stakeholders and citizens will continue to work with State and Federal officials to set spending priorities and define project scope.

I am also proud that we have maintained the linkage between transportation and the environment in our bill. Investments in transportation must build strong, healthy communities. Through advanced planning and early coordination we can ensure better results.

I urge my colleagues to work with those of us responsible for this bill so that we may complete our work in a timely way. America's communities are relying on us. The States are relying upon us. All people using the transportation system are depending upon us. I am sure we will produce this document in a way that will make us all very proud.

Mr. President, I am most pleased to assist in this regard.

The environmental provisions contained in this bill reflect a bipartisan compromise reached among the members of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Although there are a number of additional changes I would like to have made in these provisions, I believe the bill deals fairly in regard to these sections, given the variety of strong opinions on environmental subjects.

Several stakeholders have argued any early identification of potential environmental concerns may help reduce or avoid delays during the environmental review. Therefore, this bill specifies factors that may be considered during the transportation planning process.

Current law already requires transportation planners to consider projects and strategies that will protect and enhance the environment and improve quality of life.

The items added by this bill simply provide more direction as to what these concepts mean. These items do not constitute a checklist of items, whereby every item listed must be considered by each State and metropolitan planning organization, or MPO.

Section 1502. As another means of providing for early consideration of environmental concerns, this bill requires transportation planners to consult with appropriate resource agencies.

Interagency consultation should facilitate comparison of transportation plans to conservation plans or maps and inventories of natural or historic resources, where those plans or maps and inventories already exist and are in use.

The long-range transportation plan will also include a discussion of potential mitigation activities and sites that may help compensation for issues due to the transportation plan. This requirement is intended to get States to think strategically about mitigation. It is not to add new mitigation requirements or to require a level of detail better handled at the individual project review stage.

Section 1503. Integration of natural resource concerns into transportation project planning. Additionally, the highway bill contains provisions to incorporate the principles of context-sensitive design into current design standards. These principles involve consideration of the environmental context of a project and encouragement of design that minimizes impact on the project's surroundings. These provisions aim to integrate natural resource concerns into the transportation project planning process.

Section 1504. Public investment in transportation planning and projects. Current law provides an opportunity for the public to be involved to some degree in the development of transportation plans. This bill includes specific ideas for making public involvement opportunities more meaningful, such as making publicly available documents available on the Internet.

Section 1506. Federal and State laws often require habitat, stream, or wetland mitigation to compensate for direct adverse environmental impact caused by transportation projects. To provide additional flexibility and certainty in meeting these requirements, this bill authorizes the establishment of State mitigation funds, using moneys received from the Surface Transportation Program and National Highway System programs.

The State mitigation fund operates as a planning and project management tool available to the States. States can even use the mitigation funds to undertake larger mitigation efforts based on the total impact of a multitude of projects combined rather than project- by-project mitigation. This enables the States to more effectively plan for and provide the mitigation that is or likely will be required for transportation projects under other environmental laws.

The next section, 1511, transportation project development process. TEA-21 directed the Department of Transportation, DOT to ``develop and implement a coordinated environmental review process for highway construction and mass transit projects.'' Unfortunately, this was never achieved. It took almost 2 years for DOT to even propose rules, and those proposed rules were roundly criticized by many interested stakeholders and many in this Chamber.

That proposal has since been withdrawn. So it was necessary for us, obviously, to take the next step legislatively.

This bill sets up a process for complying with current environmental laws. In establishing a process for compliance, the bill does not venture to amend any current environmental laws. It does not venture to amend any current environmental laws.

Under this process, DOT is the lead agency with authority to set work plans and schedules, determine the purpose and need for a project, and determine which alternatives must be considered. This process also includes more public participation than currently required and continues to authorize DOT to provide funds to resource agencies to assist them in expediting project environmental reviews.

Section 1512. Assumption of responsibility for categorical exclusions. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, some types of projects can be categorically excluded from lengthy analysis. Qualifying projects are those projects that ``do not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment.''

Approximately 90 percent of all surface transportation projects are processed as categorical exclusions, or CEs, under NEPA. Since this is such an overwhelming percentage of the projects, even a small improvement in processing time for each CE can result in a large improvement systemwide.

The bill before us today attempts to make that improvement by allowing States to assume the Secretary's responsibility for completing the environmental review process for projects classified as CE under current regulations.

This assumption of responsibility will be limited to those States that have adequate capabilities and would remain subject to Federal oversight to maintain proper accountability.

Section 1513. Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program. Often a State will do much of the work involved with the preparing and environmental review of a surface transportation project. Then the Federal Department of Transportation must review and approve the State's work, the applicable documentation. Some stakeholders have argued that allowing States to complete the NEPA review, regardless of whether the project requires a categorical exclusion, environmental assessment, or even an environmental impact statement, could result in significant time savings and speed up project delivery.

The highway bill sets out to explore this idea by establishing a pilot program that allows up to five States to assume the Secretary's responsibility for the environmental review of a transportation project.

Under this pilot program, States will have to meet several criteria before and after selection to participate. These requirements include soliciting public comment prior to applying for participation, verifying adequate capabilities to carry out the responsibilities to be assumed, entering into a written agreement with the Secretary, submitting to the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, submitting to periodic compliance audits, and complying with the same procedural and subsequent requirements under Federal environmental law as would apply if the Secretary were conducting reviews.

Section 1514. In keeping with the new environmental changes, the bill directs the Department of Transportation to promulgate new regulations within 1 year to implement the planning and project delivery sections of the bill.

Section 1521. Critical real property acquisition. The committee bill enables States to use Federal funds to expeditiously acquire a limited number of parcels of land that may be needed for future transportation development but are threatened by imminent economic development.

The early acquisition of property keeps future transportation options open and provides States with an important opportunity to reserve future alignment alternatives while allowing timely and cost-saving acquisitions.

In limited circumstances and with the Secretary's approval, States can use the Federal funds to cover the cost incurred in acquiring parcels of land that are considered to be critical for any transportation project under title 23. Federal land may be used to acquire property prior to the completion of the environmental reviews for proper acquisition. Environmental reviews and approvals are still required before physical construction, demolition, or clearing is commenced. If a parcel is later sold or leased, States cannot retain the Federal share of the proceeds.

Section 1522. Planning capacity building initiative. Focusing on the importance of comprehensive and integrated planning, S. 1072 establishes a planning capacity building initiative to strengthen metropolitan and statewide transportation planning and to enhance tribal capacity to conduct joint transportation planning.

The bill gives priority to planning practices that support the transportation elements of homeland security planning, performance- based planning, safety planning, operations planning, freight planning, and the integration of environment and planning. The planning capacity building initiative will be administered by the DOT's Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration.

Section 1601. Environmental restoration and pollution abatement control of invasive plant species and establishment of native species. Storm water runoff from highways has a direct impact on the Nation's waterways, carrying with it pollutions such as brake linings, oils, heavy metals, road salts, nutrients, et cetera. To address these waterborne pollutants, current law already allows States to use STP funds to address water pollution or environmental degradation caused or contributed to by transportation facilities currently undergoing reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, or restoration so long as the environmental project does not exceed 20 percent of the overall project cost.

This bill extends eligibility for those types of mitigation projects from the States' STP funds to include their funds under the NHS program as well. It further allows the funds to be used for environmental restoration projects not associated with an active construction project.

The stormwater project must address runoff from an existing Federal- aid highway but not necessarily one undergoing reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, or restoration.

Invasive species are a growing problem both economically and environmentally. These harmful plants plague thousands of areas of rangelands and croplands and have been cited as a staggering problem by such organizations such as the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the American Farm Bureau Federation. By making both NHS and STP funds available to mitigate invasive species along roadways, we provide States with the flexibility to minimize the impact of vehicles as vectors of these problematic plants.

Section 1602 relates to the National Scenic Byways Program. TEA-21 continues the National Scenic Byways Program authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to designate roads that have outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural, recreational, and architectural qualities as all-American roads, or national scenic highways.

This bill amends the current program to recognize that the Secretary already is promoting the collection of ``national scenic byways'' and ``all-American roads'' under the designation of ``America's byways.'' If State and Federal representatives reach consensus on establishing a single designation category, then these amendments will provide the Secretary with the authority to use any of the three terms, national scenic byways, all-American roads, or America's byways, as the single designation.

The bill also authorizes the Secretary for the first time to form public/private partnerships to carry out technical assistance, marketing, market research, and promotion with respect to national scenic byways.

Section 1603 is the Recreational Trails Program. This bill continues the Recreational Trails Program allowing Federal funds to be used to provide and maintain recreational trails for motorized and nonmotorized recreational trail uses. New eligible uses of funds permit trail assessment for accessibility and maintenance, and to hire trail crews or youth conservation or service corps to perform recreational trails activities. Current activities eligible under the program educational funding already include nonlaw enforcement trail safety, trail use monitoring patrols, and trail-related training.

Since projects under the Recreational Trails Program are much smaller than typical highway projects, this program is relieved of several normal requirements which, although appropriate for large highway projects, would be excessively burdensome for small trail projects.

Section 1604 covers exemption of interstate systems. SAFETEA establishes an exemption for the interstate system from consideration as a ``historic site'' regardless of whether the interstate system or portions of the interstate system may be eligible for listing on the National Registry of Historic Places. However, a portion of the interstate system that possesses an independent feature of historic significance, such as a bridge or a uniquely significant architectural feature, may still be considered a historic site individually.

Section 1605 of this bill changes current law to place greater emphasis on the need to consider the preservation of human and natural resources in the

decisionmaking process of developing highway projects. Consideration of a variety of highway project impacts has been part of the design process for many years. However, the transportation community has demanded improvements in project delivery and in the makeup of the product that is delivered. Compatibility with the surrounding environment and improved safety for the motorist and the pedestrian are critical.

The bill also directs the Secretary to ensure that the plans and specifications for proposed highway projects have considered preservation, historic, scenic, natural environment, and community values. However, States can use existing processes for demonstrating that they have considered these subject factors.

Section 1606 covers use of high-occupancy vehicle lanes which has been a topic of great interest to both States and stakeholders. This reauthorization bill clarifies existing law and provides more flexibility to State and local agencies for effective management of high-occupancy vehicle, or HOV, facilities. Certain types of vehicles are exempt from meeting the general occupancy requirements for HOV facilities. The bill further identifies the possible operational strategies that responsible agencies may select from to maximize the use of HOV facilities, manage highway capacity, mitigate congestion, and reduce fuel consumption.

Motorcycles continue to be allowed use of HOV facilities. Responsible Government agencies choosing to meet additional requirements may also allow low-emission and energy-efficient vehicles, such as hybrid vehicles, to use HOV facilities. These agencies are also given the authority to toll the use of an HOV facility by vehicles that do not otherwise meet the normal minimum capacity or other exemption requirements.

Section 1607 relates to bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways. The highway authorization bill makes minor changes regarding pedestrian walkways, specifically allowing the use of the Surface Transportation Program, STP, funds and congestion mitigation and air quality improvement programs, CMAQs, funds for the nonconstruction pedestrian safety programs where current law only mentions bicycle safety.

We also explicitly mention the pedestrian use on bridges, whereas current law only mentions safety programs for bicycle use. The practice of charging user fees for shared-use paths is also permitted so long as the fees collected by a State are used for maintaining and operating the shared-use paths within the State.

User fees may not be collected on shared-use paths that are not within a highway right-of-way nor make user fees be charged for the use of sidewalks or bicycle paths.

I would like to stop at this point and pass the description to my good friend, Senator Bond. Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, to introduce a very simple piece of legislation that would revoke President Bush's Executive Order 13233 and put back in force President Reagan's Executive Order 12667-- restoring the American people's access to Presidential papers. This bill is the companion to H.R. 1493, which is sponsored by Representative Doug Ose and has enjoyed bipartisan support in the House.

Twenty-five years ago, this body passed the Presidential Records Act and declared that a President's papers were the property of the people of the United States of America and were to be administered by the National Archives and Records Administration, or NARA. The Act provided that Presidential papers would be made available twelve years after a President left office, allowing the former or incumbent President the right to claim executive privilege for particularly sensitive documents. In order to fulfill that mandate, President Reagan in 1989 signed Executive Order 12667, which gave the former or incumbent President thirty days to claim executive privilege.

However, in 2001, President Bush signed Executive Order 13233, nullifying President Reagan's order and imposing new regulations for obtaining Presidential documents. President Bush's new order greatly restricts access to Presidential papers by forcing all requests for documents, no matter how innocuous, to be approved by both the former President and current White House. In this way the order goes against the letter and the spirit of the Presidential Records Act by requiring the NARA to make a presumption of non-disclosure, thus allowing the White House to prevent the release of records simply by inaction.

The President's order also limits what types of papers are available by expanding the scope of executive privilege into new areas--namely communications between the President and his advisors and legal advice given to the President. Also, former Presidents can now designate third parties to exercise executive privilege on their behalf, meaning that Presidential papers could remain concealed many years after a President's death. These expansions raise some serious constitutional questions and cause unnecessary controversy that could end up congesting our already overburdened courts. My legislation simply seeks to restore a legitimate, streamlined means of carrying out this body's wishes--making Presidential records available for examination by the public and by Congress.

The administration shouldn't fear passage of this bill. Any documents that contain sensitive national security information would remain inaccessible, as would any documents pertaining to law enforcement or the deliberative process of the executive branch. Executive privilege for both former and current Presidents would still apply to any papers the White House designates. With these safeguards in place, there is no reason to further hinder access to documents that are in some cases more than twenty years old.

By not passing this bill, the Congress would greatly limit its own ability to investigate previous administrations, not to mention limit the ability of historians and other interested parties to research the past. Knowledge of the past enriches and informs our understanding of the present, and by limiting our access to these documents we do both ourselves and future generations a great disservice. Numerous historians, journalists, archivists and other scholars have voiced their disapproval of Executive Order 13233 because they understand how important access to Presidential papers can be to accurately describing and learning from past events. We here in the Congress cannot afford to surrender our ability to investigate previous Presidential administrations because doing so would remove a vitally important means of ensuring Presidential accountability.

I believe it is time for these documents to become part of the public record. I believe in open, honest, and accountable government, and I do not believe in keeping secrets from the American people. The Presidential Records Act was one of this country's most vital post- Watergate reforms and it remains vitally important today. In these times when trust in government is slipping more and more every day, we need to send a statement to the American people that we here in Washington don't need to hide from public scrutiny--that instead we welcome and encourage public scrutiny. This bill will send just such a message.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing today emergency legislation with Senators Landrieu, Lincoln, Kerry, Clinton, Murray, Lautenberg, and Mikulski that would extend a critical Federal-State program that assists low-income Medicare beneficiaries in paying their health premiums costs through the Medicaid program. This specific program, for low-income senior and disabled citizens, was enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and is slated for expiration at the end of fiscal year 2003. The program was extended and is slated for expiration at the end of fiscal year 2003. The program was extended by the two continuing resolutions and the final appropriations bill through September 30, 2003. This legislation would simply further extend it for another year--through the end of 2004.

This program, known as the Qualifying Individual Program, or QI-1, within Medicaid is a block grant payment to states to pay the Medicare Part B premium of $58.70 per month in 2003 for individuals with monthly incomes between $887 and $997 for individuals and between $1,194 and $1,344 for couples. This covers Medicare beneficiaries with income between 120 and 135 percent of the Federal Poverty Level.

This amounts to a benefit of over $700 annually that many older and disabled Americans depend upon to pay for a portion of their health care costs, such as prescription drugs and supplemental coverage. Well over 120,000 people nationwide currently rely on the QI-1 and will be hard pressed to afford Medicare coverage without this assistance. In short, to prevent the erosion of existing low-income protections, Congress must extend the QI-1 program this year.

This is a bipartisan issue as well. President Bush had included QI-1 reauthorization in his fiscal year 2003 budget. Moreover, an extension has been included in S. 1, the ``Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003,'' but the conference is certainly not going to be completed, passed by both the House and Senate, and signed into law by the President in time before the need for States to send out notices to beneficiaries alerting them to their forthcoming loss of cost sharing protections at the end of September.

As Ron Pollack, Executive Director at Families, USA notes in his letter of support for this legislation, ``Without an extension, over 120,000 low-income Medicare beneficiaries will have to be sent notices that the program is expiring. The result will be confusion, fear, and uncertainty among this population. This disruption can all be avoided by the quick and early passage of your extension bill.''

At the Federal level, the Congress and Administration are often criticized for failure to understand what are or are not the implications to real people. One hundred and twenty thousand low-income beneficiaries face the prospect of their cost sharing increasing by over $700 per year at the end of September. They cannot be assured that an extension will be passed or done so in a timely fashion. How are they supposed to plan and budget?

When we return in September, we will have just a few legislative days to pass an extension in the Senate, the House, and be signed by the President to stop the process of States having to send out disenrollment letters. We all know this can be very difficult to get through the Congress, as it requires unanimous consent, and may not occur in a timely fashion. If not, States will be forced to send out disenrollment letters to the 120,000 low-income seniors and the disabled that rely on the cost-sharing protections provided by the QI-1 program and begin to shut down their programs.

Again, this is emergency legislation that simply provisions a one- year extension of QI-1 program to prevent the cut-off of cost-sharing protections for 120,000 low-income Medicare beneficiaries. We should be engaging in improving health coverage for low-income elderly and disabled citizens rather than leaving these vulnerable Americans facing fear, uncertainty, disruption, and increasing costs.

I urge immediate passage of this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last evening, I introduced two bills with Senator Domenici and yet another one today to address a technical, but very important problem that the State of New Mexico and a number of other States, including that of the Majority Leader, have faced with respect to the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. When CHIP was established by President Clinton and the Congress in 1997, an inequity was built into the program whereby certain states that had been more progressive and had expanded coverage to children through Medicaid prior to the enactment of the bill were penalized.

In the last Congress and again this year, I introduced the ``Children's Health Equity Act of 2003'' to address this problem for a number of States, including New Mexico, Vermont, Washington, and Tennessee. Our states have been unable to fully access Federal CHIP funds because the previous expansion of Medicaid to children was not recognized or ``grandfathered,'' while certain other States such as New York, Florida, and Pennsylvania were explicitly ``grandfathered'' in and their State expansions to children were allowed to be covered with CHIP dollars.

The National Governors' Association has long recognized this inequity and has, in fact, a policy that read, ``The Governors believe that it is critical that innovative states not be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before the enactment of S-CHIP, which provides enhanced funding to meet these goals. To this end, the Governors support providing additional funding flexibility to states that had already significantly expanded coverage to the majority of uninsured children in their states.''

S. 621, the ``Children's Health Equity Act,'' did precisely that and the critical language from our legislation was included in S. 312 by Senators Rockefeller and Chafee, which addressed both expired and expiring CHIP funds and the problem addressed by S. 621. We appreciated their recognition of that issue and supported the passage of that legislation after an extensive set of negotiations and compromises on the language.

For New Mexico, an important issue is that our State expanded coverage up to 185 percent of poverty prior to the enactment of CHIP. Because of this, the children in our State between 100 percent and 185 percent of poverty are ineligible for CHIP. Thus, New Mexico has been allocated $266 million from CHIP between fiscal years 1998 and 2002, and yet has only been able to spend slightly over $26 million as of the end of the last fiscal year. In other words, New Mexico has been allowed to spend less than 10 percent of its Federal CHIP allocations. This, despite the fact our State ranks 2nd in the Nation in the percentage of children who are uninsured.

It is a travesty that money set-aside for New Mexico to address our children's coverage problem is not available to be spent and is thereby redistributed to other States who have far lower uninsured rates and whose children between 100 and 185 percent of poverty are eligible for Federal CHIP dollars. The children in those States are certainly no more worthy of health insurance coverage than the children of New Mexico.

The consequences for the children of New Mexico are enormous. According to the Census Bureau, New Mexico has an estimated 114,000 uninsured children. Put another way, almost 21 percent of all the children in New Mexico are uninsured, despite the fact New Mexico has expanded coverage all the way to 235 percent of poverty. Again, this is the 2nd highest rate of uninsured children in the country.

This is a result of the fact that an estimated 80 percent of the uninsured children in New Mexico are below 200 percent of poverty. These children are often eligible for either Medicaid or CHIP but currently unenrolled. With the exception of those few children between 185 and 200 percent of poverty who are eligible for the enhanced federal CHIP dollars, all of the remaining children below 185 percent of poverty in New Mexico are denied CHIP funding despite their need.

For New Mexico, the Senate language that was in S. 621 and included in S. 312 would have allowed New Mexico to spend up to 20 percent of its Federal CHIP allotments on children enrolled between 150 and 185 percent of poverty. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives chose to modify the Senate language in such a manner through the introduction and passage of H.r. 2854 that New Mexico may no longer be eligible.

The House of Representatives, which did not include language addressing New Mexico's problem in the first place, chose to edit the Senate language that ``grandfathered'' States that had previous expanded coverage ``up to'' 185 percent of poverty and above and replaced it with language that the State had to have expanded coverage to ``at least'' 185 percent of poverty.

This sounds rather technical, but this slight difference may ironically allow all the other states our bill intended to help, who expanded coverage beyond 185 percent of poverty, such as Vermont and Washington, to be ``grandfathered'' but not New Mexico. It is my contention, after reviewing the materials from our State that our State expanded coverage to 185 percent of poverty and operates a full Medicaid benefit at 185 percent of poverty and therefore should qualify as a State to be ``grandfathered.'' Unfortunately, the language change has left the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, uncertain of our State's eligibility, as some believe the State has only some up to 185 percent of poverty, or just short of that level, and therefore does not meet the test of ``at least'' 185 percent of poverty.

For six long years, the States of Washington, New Mexico, Vermont, and others have sought to fix the inequity in CHIP. Senator Slade Gorton of Washington had the original legislation to fix this problem and I picked up, modified, and reintroduced that legislation in the last two sessions of Congress. After six long years, to now find that New Mexico may be the only State excluded by the House change and 0.0001 percentage points, is both outrageous and unacceptable.

I contend that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, can still make a determination that New Mexico meets this revised standard under H.R. 2854 and urge them to do so as soon possible.

However, in the meantime, since New Mexico's status is now in question. I introduced two bills last night and another one today with Senator Domenici that all clarify that New Mexico qualifies. The first includes New Mexico as a ``qualified state'' explicitly. This would leave no question at all. The second bill clarifies that a State found to be a partial percentage point below 185 percent of poverty would round up to the nearest number, that being 185 percent of poverty, and be eligible. That would also undoubtedly ensure New Mexico's eligibility. In order to release our hold, I have asked that the bill I introduced changing the percentage that a qualified state must be changed from 185 to

184 percent of poverty be approved by the State in conjunction with H.R. 2854. Unfortunately, our bill will then have to be taken up and passed by the House of Representatives and signed into law by the President.

I have received a letter from Chairman Tauzin, and Ranking Member Dingell of the House Energy and Commerce Committee ensuring the intent of H.R. 2854 is to include New Mexico and provides their commitment that they will ensure any technical problem our State has with the language will be fixed immediately upon return from the August recess. I thank them for their commitment to New Mexico.

Once again, many States are accessing their CHIP allotments to cover kids at poverty levels far below New Mexico's current or past eligibility levels. The children in those states are certainly no more worthy and the children of New Mexico deserve better than they are getting from the Federal Government. I accept the commitment made by the leadership of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee to fix this problem and therefore urge the passage of both H.R. 2854 and the original legislation that I introduced today.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referred to be printed in the Record.